CHODI MAHALAKSHMI Vs. KOPPADA SATHIRAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O.S.No.1 of 1990 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada is the appellant herein. THE suit was filed for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 30-04-1981 executed by the first defendant free of the mortgage said to have been created by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant.

(2.) THE allegations in the plaint goes to show that the schedule property, which is an extent of Ac.5.85 cents of land, belongs to the first defendant and she agreed to sell the property for a consideration of Rs.78,000/- on 30-04-1981 and received a sum of Rs.40,000/- and the possession was delivered. THE time for payment of the balance amount of Rs.38,000/- was fixed as one month i.e., before the end of May 1981. THE first defendant undertook to discharge the debts owed by her to the L.M.B and thereafter undertook to give the title deeds relevant to the schedule property and the possession of the property was delivered in part performance of the contract. Subsequently, on 27-10-1981 the plaintiff paid to the husband of the first defendant a sum of Rs.33,860/- towards balance of sale consideration and he endorsed on the back of the agreement. He represented that the first defendant is not available and therefore he has acted on her behalf. In the first week of November 1981 a sum of Rs.4140/- was paid in full payment of the balance of the sale consideration and also a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards interest. THE plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the first defendant has not fulfilled the obligation to discharge the loan to the land mortgage bank and to deliver the title deeds. As the first defendant avoided, a legal notice was given and the first defendant gave a reply with false allegations and pleading that the plaintiff is a tenant of the schedule property and on the date of suit agreement it is issued a only a sum of Rs.4,000/- as advance of the rent and the plaintiff wanted some documents and she signed on the papers. THE second defendant is a subsequent alienee after the suit agreement in whose favour a mortgage has been created and filed a suit O.S.No.357 of 1993 and proceeding in execution. THErefore, the defendants are liable for the specific performance of the contract or in the alternative for a refund of the sale consideration of Rs.78,000/-.

(3.) IN the year 1983, the plaintiff fell in arrears of the rent and the defendants demanded the plaintiff to pay the agreed rent but in stead of it, the plaintiff created a false story of the agreement and gave a legal notice. A criminal case was also filed by the defendants. Proceedings for eviction were also initiated under the Tenancy Act. Therefore, by playing fraud and exercising undue influence the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the first defendant and of her husband and subsequently converted the same into the suit agreement. The payment of Rs.33,860/- on 27-10-1981 is also denied. The further payment and interest payment in the last week of November 1981 is also denied. The suit is therefore liable for dismissal.